- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 13:47:50 +0100
- To: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Cc: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 2012-05-13, at 23:07, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > I don't see Richard's proposal as chopping up the design space at all. > > Instead I see that his proposal is aiming squarely at what has mostly been agreed on - syntax. I also do not think that it moves forward one piece at a time, but instead addressed one real chunk of the problem. > > There may be some tweaks required, but I think that Richard's proposal is a very good place to start. > > peter > > PS: I also think that it is a very good place to *stop*, but this is somewhat more controversial. Not in these parts. We (the RDF user community) been getting along quite nicely with just what's defined by SPARQL Datasets for a good few years now. I'm not opposed to have a more fine-grained definition, but I don't honestly think it would be a disaster if we didn't. A bad definition however, would be a disaster. - Steve -- Steve Harris, CTO Garlik, a part of Experian 1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK +44 20 8439 8203 http://www.garlik.com/ Registered in England and Wales 653331 VAT # 887 1335 93 Registered office: Landmark House, Experian Way, Nottingham, Notts, NG80 1ZZ
Received on Wednesday, 16 May 2012 12:48:25 UTC